THREAD FOR THOSE WHO HATED THE MOVIE

The story finally was that Luke Skywalker tried to kill his nephew ( the son of his twin sister and his best friend ... ) during his sleep because he saw how bad he will be ( worse than Vader because Luke saved him ).

And then it happened, Ben Solo felt to the dark side because of Luke and then he left ... Who's gonna fix this Skywalker ? R2D2 ? Broomboy ? Chewie ?

He was the only to be able to stop Solo and the KoR and he just ... left on an island to fish and to disconnect himself of the Force dressed like a jedi on the first jedi temple island ?

And because of Luke's behaviour, Kylo hated Han Solo that much ?

And during his vision of Ben Solo being bad, Luke saw the murder of Han, the fall of the galaxy and he just left to play with porgs ?

Who ******** wrote this ?

 

You forgot a key element. From nowhere the Force imbues a savior with super powers, because Luke gave up. Light meets dark, let the past die and love what you hate... or something.

 

Like @ZDTemplar I find some of these words like "fabricated" or "genuine" a little unclear.
They have multiple definitions that can completely change the claim or the context!

"Fabricated can mean "imagined/made up" or "untrue".
Things are real for the those who believe in them!
It's hard to prove a personal subjective or qualitative judgement wrong or untrue.
You can only really demonstrate evidence to support a different opinion.​

"Genuine" can be be a little confusing too.
It generally means "sincere" or "real" and it's hard to know how genuine or sincere people are based on what they say on the internet.​

I agree with some of your counter-arguments though.
Logic can certainly refute some tenuous arguments.
But I also believe people's feelings and opinions shouldn't be de-legitimized just because they are subjective or derivative.

I think you're right in that we're all susceptible to group-think and the non-thought of received ideas.
But every now and again we come across someone whose opinion resonates with our own feelings.
Sometimes they can articulate our thoughts and feelings better than we have.
Adopting some of their language and arguments to see how they fit seems like an intelligent approach to me.

Maybe Kylo takes the darkside propaganda a bit too literally!

We think tantrum, Kylo thinks bad-ass.
In his head...

 

Worse than Vader? That's never implied. The key difference between Anakin and Luke is that they both saw terrible visions of the future. Anakin would do anything to stop it from happening. Luke contemplated killing his father, but he didn't. Luke contemplated killing Ben, but he didn't.

It's very much implied Ben was trouble for a long time before turning against Luke. After turning Snoke had a few years to manipulate the emotionally disturbed person who wants to be Vader so bad that he's will to do what Vader couldn't do and kill his family members. However, Snoke's influence started before Ben turned.

 

My comment isn't about Hux. Kylo starts TFA callously ordering a massacre and then ends TLJ callously ordering another massacre. Yes, he couldn’t bring himself to kill his mother after having just murdered his father. But beyond that, what are the amounts of scenes portraying him as a reluctant killer you’re referring to?

 

In other words, it's incontrovertible. An objective measure is for example an actual measuring stick (which is why we're using the words measure/metric). Tweleve inches in a foot. That wall is ten feet high. Incontrovertible. Objective.

We can agree on subjective metrics and call them objective within a group, but that doesn't actually create objective metrics, it creates a subjective agreement which is being used as an objective measure. But it isn't really objective. If you and I are evaluating music, and we don't like electric guitars, we can then agree on the subjective measure that, any music with electric guitars is not likeable music, and use that subjective measure as we might an objective measure since in our group we have defined the criteria thusly.

That's because movies aren't inherently good or bad. They are not objectively good or bad. That status is determined solely by the subjective experience of the individual. There is no objective measure whatsoever for whether art is "good" or "bad" art, and there never will be. Any "objective" standard of judging art is completely fabricated.

And yet another person will say, "I saw no plot problems" "There are similar plot problems in this movie which you say is good" "I did not think that scene dragged" "I was not bored" and so what then is your response to this contrary "objectivity"? Do you insist they are wrong for not being bored?

Yes. Go to RT, look at any movie. Then explain to me why there is not universal consensus among critics listed in the reviews, as to the state of the movie as "good" or "bad". I can explain that discrepency easily. Can you? If there is some "objective measure" why no objective consensus? On the other hand, take your car to a mechanic and they will all be able to give you a consensus on whether or not their is a problem with the car. Because they are evaluating by an actual objective measure.

No. Mechanics are not fabricating their measure. Film critics are. This is why the former will have objective consensus, the latter will never have objective consensus.

Subjective being passed off as objective. Fabricating a measure that does not offer consensus in judgment.

As I said, the dynamics are variable. Many are simply mimicing, yes. But they are not mimicing "more intelligent haters who have a platform" they are mimicing "other haters who have a platform on which to reach a larger audience with their fabricated criticism". Bear in mind, I'm not just saying, the arm-chair critics and critics on forum sites are fabricating criticism. I am saying, they all are. Amateurs, "professionals", the whole lot of them.

Again, look at the reviews for any movie on RT. Then tell me, objectively, which reviewers are "wrong"? And, why? Note this isn't an actual request, it is an illustration of the problem. If there is an "objective measure" then explain to me why there isn't an "objective conclusion" in the results of critic aggregator sites. Explain to me why mechanics can give consensus on whether your alternator is a bad alternator, but critics can't give you a consensus on whether TLJ is a bad movie.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 23, 2018, Original Post Date: Jun 23, 2018 ---

Are you suggesting Star Wars in the past is scientifically accurate by its own rule? How is, not being scientifically accruate breaking "its own rules"? How is this not a blatant false analogy?

Do you also think the statement "scientific inaccuracy in Star Wars is okay; but scientific inaccuracy in Star Wars is not okay" is a sincere statement? Or is completely nonsensical?

Again, any actual reasoning behind your statement? I'm giving the reasoning for my statements, you're giving no reasoning for yours. The ability to say "I disagree" is great, but it doesn't mean anything. This is why in court, "I disagree with you" isn't really a viable case.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 23, 2018 ---

Fair enough. This is why I've used the music analogy, to help make this clear:

"I do not like slow music; that music is slow; therefore that music is poorly written, and the musician is a poor writer."

The first half of that is subjective, it is not fabricated, it is sincere, genuine subjective.
The whole of that statement is complete fabrication of an "objective" measure. It is not genuine criticism. The critic is "inventing/creating/forming/fashioning" an "objectivity" that does not actually exist. His criticism is not "genuine" objective criticism. His criticism is not genuine, it is fabricated objective measuring following from his own personal feelings, which have no meaning or relevance outside of his own experience.

Fabricated: Fashioning the illusion of an objective measure entirely based on a non-objective, subjective feeling. Not genuinely objective. False objectivity. Invented objectivity.

Does this provide clarification?

The irony here being that, the writer is not at fault for anything; but those criticizing him as a "poor writer" are at fault for, poor judgment. Anyone saying "Rian Johnson is a terrible writer" are actually saying "I am a terrible judge" they just don't know it. And you know what they say about, judge not lest ye be judged, by what measure you measure, you will be measured.

 

Besides pointing out how wondefully contradictory your statement above is.. a really misguided arm chair intellectualism intellectualism if I ever saw one, I think I will leave the reply at that. Your last assumption denying you carry any premeditated thoughts and experiences yourself, especially as a SW fan, just doesn't make it worthwhile. We all carry them, whether you like it or not. I think you would be incapable to recognise any criticism as genuine through the lenses of your own opinion if you do not have a higher degree of self-reflection.

 

Implied where ? In a book nobody bought ?

 

In TFA

Han: There's too much Vader in him.
Leia: That's why I wanted him to be trained with Luke. I just never should have sent him away, that’s when I lost him.
...
Han: We lost our son. Forever.
Leia: No. It was Snoke. He seduced our son to the dark side.

RJ should have explored this a good bit more though - expanded that premise and leant more context.

 

It's implied in The Force Awakens. I suspect this could be explained further in the next film. It wasn't a requirement for The Last Jedi. The story was about the rift between Luke and Ben. Not so much about how Snoke manipulated Ben. JJ may not explore that anyway. We never learned about Anakin's fall until the prequels.

 

This is a matter of good storytelling. A good story sets rules for the universe within which it inhabits, and then follows its own rules. I do not expect scientific accuracy in a Star Wars movie, but I do expect it to be consistent with the rules they have laid down. This is why I use the example of Kylo Ren sprouting wings and breathing fire. Yes I realize that has not happened in any Star Wars movie, but I use it as an extreme example that there comes a point where scientific inaccuracies go too far.

Has anyone made that statement, or are you simply putting words in other peoples' mouths? The fact that you have to so drastically misrepresent the arguments other people are putting forth only shows the weakness in your own thesis. You are unable to respond to what people actually said so instead you are putting words in their mouths and responding to what you're pretending they said.

No one has made the statement you have put above in quotes. (For someone who accuses others of being insincere, you sure are being awfully misleading/dishonest yourself) What many people are saying is that "a certain degree of scientific inaccuracy in Star Wars is OK, but there does come a point where they have gone too far into the realm of scientific inaccuracy by no longer being consistent with their own rules." That is an opinion I agree with, even though I do not consider the "dropping bombs" scene to be an example of such.

I have answered your questions, now I ask you to please answer one of mine: IF Kylo Ren sprouted wings and breathed fire, would you be cool with that? Would you say "hey, this is Star Wars and if you accept scientific inaccuracies in early movies, you therefore have to accept any scientific inaccuracy they come up with."...?

I have given a lot of reasoning behind my statements. You are merely pulling the old internet maneuver of "I disagree with what this person is saying so I am going to accuse them of not explaining themselves."

 

Yeah that helps some.

But surely the criticism remains valid so long as there is some criteria for evaluation?

I don't think it's that black and white.

Until you provide the criteria for what in your opinion makes a "terrible judge" then labeling them as such is also "fashioning an objectivity that does not exist"!

People can have some peculiar criteria for what constitutes "good" or "bad" art in their mind!

It's why I think it's more constructive when discussing opinions about art or artists that the game becomes more about demonstrating evidence to support your argument and less about trying to invalidate the arguments of others.

 

I don’t think pointing out plot holes is being a terrible judge, if anything, blindly liking anything Star Wars and refusing to see the problems is an issue I think. Most of the issues in TLJ can be overlooked for some fans, but don’t attack the people that are just pointing them out. Rian Johnson is not a terrible writer, TLJ could have used a rewrite to fix some issues IMO.

 

Well, that's a statement, sure. But instead of just making statement, why not show the reasoning. Why not address one of the points I made in the original post with some kind of rebut? Any one of them. Pick one.

You talk about bias, but I'm not the one engaging in a double-standard. Show me my bias with some kind of reasoning for your claim of bias. I claim the "critics" are engaging in a bias as illustrated by the examples in the OP. When someone is criticizing TLJ for "scientific inaccuracy" while at the same time not leveling the same criticism at the OT, then there is a clear bias in criticism.

All that you guys have done is talk, with no reasoning produced for your claims. Though, I will give to Sparafuceli(sp?) that he/she at least engaged in discussion on those points in the OP.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 24, 2018, Original Post Date: Jun 24, 2018 ---

Is that an objectively true statement? Or is it your subjective opinion? Are the LotR stories good stories? If so, what are the "rules" laid down for the universe within which it inhabits? Did Gandalf's fight against the Balrog break any rules? Did Gandalf the Grey becoming Gandalf the White break any rules? What are the "rules" of Harry Potter?

Note that I'm not actually asking you to list the "rules" for these, I'm only trying to cause your mind to understand that your statement has no real substance in and of itself.

Also, if I provide movies that seem to have no "rules" yet are considered "great" films, do you then claim everyone who claims they are "great" are objectively wrong and that these movies are in fact, objectively "bad stories"?

Okay, and what are the "rules" that Star Wars has laid down for "scientific accuracy" in the context of its own story? What are the "rules" for the force that have been laid down? You're bring up this idea of "rules set down" so let's have the rules. Because to know if rules are being broken, we have to first know the rules, true?

The "criticisms" I listed are things I have heard repeated scores of times. I'm not putting words into anyone's mouths.

I am the one making that statement in quotes. I did not in any way attribute that statement to anyone else. I made that statement. And I asked you, if that statement makes sense, and if you thought it was an example of a "sincere criticism". Did anyone but you make the statement "Kylo Ren sprouting wings"? No. That was your statement, and you made that statement, why? To be misleading/dishonest? Was that why you made that statement? Or was there another reason? So, you make a statement, it's all fine. I do the same thing, and I'm misleading/dishonest? And you don't see the double-standard in that criticism?

Then provide an example of TLJ going "too far" and the specific "rules laid down" that it violates?

I would not be okay with Kylo Ren sprouting wings and breathing fire. Again, call me when/if it (or anything actually like it) happens. Otherwise? False analogy.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 24, 2018 ---

Bear in mind that we're dealing with several differing dynamics all in operation in several different groups. The foundation of what I'm saying is, see those criticisms listed in my OP? Those criticisms are fabricated. They are not genuine. They are counterfeit. And the only reason to produce a counterfeit, is to try to pass it off as genuine.

Again, suppose we start with the first "criticism" on the OP list. Scientifically inaccurate. I'm going to propose that every person who has leveled that criticism against TLJ is in fact, a person that was predisposed to dislike the movie, and are engaging in fabrication of a criticism where none should exist, just to attempt to justify their predisposition. They went into the film saying, I am going to dislike this film, then fabricated the "evidence" for their dislike of the film.

I say this because that criticism is a clear double-standard that should not exist at all. The Star Wars movies have never in the history of the franchise been about scientific accuracy in any way, shape or form. And everybody knows this. But the people making the criticism (like many) don't think their thoughts all the way through and in their haste to criticize the film didn't realize how transparent the criticism would actually be.

Even those in opposition to my argument do not seem too keen on that specific criticism, avoiding it (indeed, the entire list) altogether; one of them even going so far as to produce "Kylo sprouting wings" to attempt to alleviate the problem with the criticism. Because I am confident that everyone knows the criticism of "scientific inaccuracy" is preposterous in the context of a Star Wars film. Yet, there the criticism is. The question is; why?

So my question to you is; why do you think that criticism exists? What would be your, initial hypothesis? The criteria is there. "Scientific accuracy". Is the criticism, valid? What do you think?

Is it any different than someone who doesn't like classical music making the statement that Mozart is a terrible composer? If I respond, all that really tells me is that you're a terrible judge of composers; would you also say, you don't think it's that black and white?

Again, there are multiple dynamics here, and they must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Which is why I have been saying, the list of criticisms in the OP is the proverbial foundation of my thought in this thread. If you want criteria, there they are. For instance, again with the first criticism the criteria for "terrible judge" is a double-standard in judgment. So "Rian Johnson is a terrible writer because [see list]"; the criteria for the conclusion "terrible judge" is based on the specific criticism being used to judge the writer's capabilities, and the nature of that criticism (in the case of 1, double-standard).

My argument is that the criticisms are fabricated. That's the argument I am supporting. To your mind, what should be the argument?

 

This person who has been sucking up to and promoting Rian Johnson for years and writes for StarWars.com and SW Insider.









People with this dismissive type of attitude is why Star Wars is declining across the board from toy sales to movies to games and so on - telling customers that customers don't exist and telling them to f off and shut up about their treatment. (Theaters split tickets (65%/35%) majority for Disney under that contract.) Without the average person financially supporting Star Wars, Star Wars is nothing and so are their jobs. Star Wars isn't for free (maybe SW writers get everything for free) and it isn't 'a gift' for the public and neither is its existence a charity.

 

Wow...This is the best rant on Kylo Ren I've ever seen. The amount of work and passion you put into writing this...it's just spectacular. I genuinely admire your dedication. I disagree with every single word you said, but this was so well written that I could almost see things from your perspective. Sure, that will never EVER happen, but regardless, your post was very entertaining. Good work!

 

Emo Quiverlip's character is just written in a schizophrenic manner and his redemption story has been shoved down the audience's throat since the first movie as the writers blame everyone else for his decisions: Vader, Snoke, Han, Leia, and now Luke).

The OT actually slowwalked the concept by giving the protagonist (Luke) the goal of wishing he knew his father during the first movie and then in the second he obtains his goal in a terrible way - the villain is his father. It was a revenge tale turned on its head. Then it wasn't until the last movie where the protagonist restored his father for a brief moment before he perished. It was something that was built to, not shoved down our throats.

 

This is silly conclusion to make over a series of tweets. Movie franchises rise and fall based the quality of films. General audiences who make up the majority of film goers aren't engaged in headed debates on Twitter.

 

Rian Johnson had the 'I care more about me than I do about them (the masses)' attitude when doing The Last Jedi, according to Rian Johnson himself and Mark Hamill. This affliction runs rampant with those who associate themselves with Lucasfilm.